1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 15th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC.CRIMINAL CASE No.41764 of 2022

Between:-

1. SHUBHAM S/O SANJAY LEWARKAR,

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
SERVICE (AADHAAR NO. 813779405855).
2. SANJAY S/O HIRAMAN LEWARKAR,
OTHERS AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPAION-SERVICE (AADHAAR
NO.710182266579).
3. SMT. PRAJAKTA W/O SANJAY
LEWARKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD (AADHAAR
NO.7640554552298)

ALL PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PLOT

NO.9A/1, NEAR MOURYA SABHAGRUH,
PARVATI NAGAR, NAGPUR-440 027, AJNI,
NAGPUR.
.....APPLICANTS

(BY SHRI SACHIN R.GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.

LALBAGH, BURHANPUR, MADHYA PRADESH.

2. SMT. BHAGYASHREE SHUBHAM

LEWARKAR PRIOR TO MARRIGE KNOWN AS
BHAGYASHREE RAVINDRA PAWAR, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION SERVICE R/O
C/O RAVINDRA PAWAR WARD NO.40, HOUSE
NO.148/1, LAXMI NAGAR, GURUNANAK
WARD, BURHANPUR-450 331.

……RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI SATYAPAL CHADAR – GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR

 2

RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI AMIT DUBEY –

ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVED ON : 10.05.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.06.2023
__________________________________________________________
This misc.criminal case coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble
Shri Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, passed the following:

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of F.I.R.No.420/2022 dated 25.07.2022 registered at P.S.-
Lalbag, Burhanpur against the applicants for commission of offence
under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that on 25.07.2022
respondent No.2/wife who was married with applicant No.1/husband on
21.11.2021 filed an application in writing before police Lalbag alleging
that her marriage was solemnized with applicant No.1 as per Hindu
tradition and rites. On the next date of marriage i.e 22.11.2021, her
husband's grand father left for heavenly abode, therefore, applicants
started torturing her by saying that she has brought misfortune to their
house. They also started torturing her for not bringing sufficient dowry
and asked her to bring Rs.5 lakhs from her parents towards dowry. They
also started to beat her. Applicants No.2 and 3 father-in-law and mother-
in-law use to abate / instigate their son applicant No.1 against respondent
No.2 and on account of abatement/incitement, applicant No.1/husband
use to torture and beat respondent No.2/wife.
3. After sometime, applicant No.1/husband took her to Gujrat. There
also he harassed her. After some days, they returned to Nagpur. She
 3

narrated the entire incident to her parents on phone and called her brother
Prashant to Nagpur and left her matrimonial home on 16.06.2022 and
reached to her parental home at Laxminagar, Burhanpur. She had
narrated the entire incident to her parents, brother and other relatives. On
23.07.2022, applicant No.1/ husband and applicant No.2/father-in-law
came to Burhanpur and outside One Stop Center, her father-in-law told
that unless they fulfill the demand of Rs.5 Lakh, they will not fetch
respondent No.2 to the matrimonial home. When she asked her husband
that her father does not have so much amount to give as dowry, applicant
No.1/husband abused and slapped her and told that if she attempted to
come back to matrimonial home without bringing Rs.5 lakhs, he will
eliminate her. On the basis of the complaint filed in writing, F.I.R was
registered and matter is still under investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that marriage of
applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 21.11.2021
without any dowry i.e only 8 months ago before filing of the complaint.
The F.I.R. No.420/22 does not disclose any specific role of the applicants
about any ill-treatment, misbehaviour or demand of dowry from
respondent No.2. In the F.I.R, no specific date, time and incident has
been mentioned to prove the act of harassment or torture amounting to
cruelty with respondent No.2/wife. After marriage, respondent No.2 did
not live even for a period of 30 days with the applicant No.1. Respondent
No.2 is not a woman of good nature as she is quarrelsome. She use to
quarrel with applicant No.1/husband over trivial issues due to which
applicant No.1 find it difficult to concentrate on his work. Ultimately, he
resigned from the job. At the time of marriage, the horoscope was not
matched but even then the marriage was performed. In marriage, the
expenses incurred towards various functions were borne by both the
parties. Applicants had neither demanded any dowry nor harassed,
 4

torture or subjected to cruelty to respondent No.2 in connection with

demand of dowry. Infact, it is the misbehaviour and short tempered
nature of respondent No.2 which has caused all the problems. She is in
habit of frequently leaving for maternal home. She is high headed and is
in habit of disturbing peace of applicant No.1. Respondent No.2 herself
does not want to live in matrimonial home with applicant No.1. It is
further submitted that on 22.02.2022, applicant No.1 lost his grand
mother but respondent No.2 even having knowledge of the same did not
get ready to go to Nagpur to attend her last rites. Respondent No.2 is a
quarrelsome lady and her behaviour is unbearable. She is short tempered
and often behaves violently. It is further submitted that as F.I.R does not
disclose any specific role of the applicants about causing harassment,
torture or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry as required under
section 498-A of IPC, no offence is made out. To buttress his argument,
learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the case of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar-(2022) 6 SCC 599 and
has prayed that F.I.R. No.420/22 dated 25.07.2022 registered in P.S.
Lalbagh Burhanpur and the consequential proceedings, if any, be
quahsed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/State as well as
learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant have opposed the
prayer for quashment of the F.I.R. It is submitted that matter is still under
investigation as no charge sheet has been filed against the applicants so
far. Investigation should be allowed to continue so that truth may be
collected through investigation. It is further submitted that the matter is
at the stage of investigation, therefore, it would not be justified for this
court to make any interference in the investigation by quashing the F.I.R.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. On perusal of the F.I.R and other material on record, it is apparent
 5

that marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 was

solemnized only 08 months before lodging the F.I.R. At the time of
marriage, gold ornaments and other articles were given. It is further
alleged that few days after marriage, applicants asked respondent No.2 to
bring Rs.5 lakh as dowry from her father. As Rs.5 lakhs could not be
arranged, she was subjected to crusty both mentally and physically. In the
F.I.R specific time, date and incident has been mentioned. On
23.07.2022, applicant No.1 abused and slapped respondent No.2. In
medical examination abrasion has been found on the cheek of respondent
No.2. As per allegations they told her that she can return to matrimonial
home only if she brings Rs.5,00,000/- dowry. On perusal of the case
diary, it is apparent that investigation is still under way and charge sheet
has not been filed. In the investigation conducted so far sufficient
incriminating material has been collected against the applicants and F.I.R
itself discloses offences under section 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC and
section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. As charge sheet has not been
filed, it would not be proper to quash the proceedings invoking the
provision of section 482 of Cr.P.C. So far as the case of Kahkashan
Kausar (supra) is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex court in para-17 observed
as under :-
“17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A
IPC and the increased tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
without analysing the long term ramifications of a
trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that false
implication by way of general omnibus allegations
made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left
unchecked would result in misuse of the process of
law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has
warned the courts from proceeding against the
 6

relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima

facie case is made out against them.”

In that case the Hon’ble Apex Court after examining the allegations
leveled against the appellants came to the conclusion that the allegations
made against them being general and omnibus did not warrant
prosecution.
8. In the case of of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal-(1992)
Supp(1) SCC 335, in para-7 the Hon’ble Apex Court identified following
cases in which F.I.R/ complaint can be quashed :-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
 7

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in

any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the Act concerned,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge."

9. On perusal of the material available in the case diary and also form
the averments made in the F.I.R, it is clear that specific case has been
disclosed against the applicants and no veiled object appears implicating
the applicants falsely. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R, it is
apparent that specific overt acts are alleged against all the applicants.
Even otherwise when investigation is still under way, it cannot be said
that mere casual references of the names of the applicants in matrimonial
dispute without allegations of active involvement have been made. It is
settled preposition of law that powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is very
wide but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. In
Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others-
2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that
when a prayer for quashment of the F.I.R is made by the alleged accused
and the court when it exercises powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether the allegations in the F.I.R disclose commission
of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on
merits whether or not the mertis of the allegations make out a cognizable
 8

offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/ police to
investigate the allegations in the F.I.R.

10. In the case of Ramesh Singh Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & ors.
2020 SCC OnLine MP 887, the Division Bench of this Court has
examined the matter in detail and placing reliance on the decision of
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh
Chander- (2012)9 SCC 460 has held as under:

"10. As per the provision of law which flows from

the judgment in Amit Kapoor (supra), it is clear that
at the stage, at which the present case is, the court
should not examine the facts, evidence and material
on record to determine whether there is sufficient
material, which may end in a conviction. The
court is only concerned with the allegations taken
as a whole whether they will constitute an offence.
Similarly, under section 482 Cr.P.C the court cannot
take into consideration external materials given by
an accused for arriving to a conclusion that no
offence was disclosed or there was possibility of his
acquittal. Whether mens rea behind the PC Act of
forgery is present or not cannot be decided at this
early stage and is best to be left to be adjudicated by
the Trial Court after marshalling of evidence."
11. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Teeja Devi Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2014)15 SCC 221 has held as under:

"We have no hesitation in holding that in the facts

of the case, the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the Police investigation and
quashing the FIR. This is not at all a rare case.
Without thorough investigation, it is not possible or
proper to hold whether allegations made by the
complainant are true or not. Hence the
investigation should have been allowed to continue
so that on filing of the report under Section 173
CrPC the affected party could pursue its remedy
against the report in accordance with law. Keeping
in view the fact that the criminal case was at the
 9

stage of investigation by the Police the High Court

was not justified in holding that the investigation
of the impugned FIR is totally unwarranted and
that the same would amount to gross abuse of the
process of court."
12. The case of Kahkashan Kausar (supra) has no application as in
that case allegations were made not only against the husband but the
relatves of the husband also and allegations were omnibus and general
in nature. While in the case on hand, specific allegations have been made
against the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent No.2.

13. In this case, it has been contended by learned counsel for the
applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated on the basis of
complaint made by them against respondent No.2 as she is of
quarrelsome nature. Their defence cannot be considered in this petition
when investigation is yet to be completed by the police. At this
preliminary stage, it cannot be concluded that the allegations made by
respondent No.2 in the F.I.R have a truth of ring or not or whether
ingredients of the offences alleged are made out or not. It is pertinent to
mention that F.I.R. has been lodged only within 08 months of marriage
and no newly married wife would like to ruin her matrimonial home until
and unless she is harassed or subjected to cruelty in connection with
demand of dowry. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that
allegations made are false or baseless. The defence cannot be looked into
by this court at the initial stage of criminal proceedings. It is also settled
position of law that under section 482 of Cr.P.C., this court cannot
embark upon appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of F.I.R.

14. In the aforesaid backdrop and in ultimate analysis, I am of the view

that prayer for quashment of F.I.R.No.420/2022 dated 25.07.2022
registered at P.S.-Lalbag, Burhanpur against the applicants for
 10

commission of offence under Section 498-A, 294, 323, 506 of IPC and
Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is liable to be rejected.
Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)

JUDGE

MKL
MANOJ KUMAR
LALWANI
2023.06.15
18:42:06 +05'30'